The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical malpractice case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this wrongful death case and its proceedings.)

Claimed Absence Of Explanation By Dr. Smith

Second, it is interesting that Plaintiffs claim Dr. Smith gave no explanation for how spinal cord injury would be avoided by ordering Mr. Greene into physical therapy. The simple explanation for this claimed failure by Dr. Smith is that the cited questioning was by Plaintiffs’ counsel, who elected not to ask for an explanation.

Testimony Of Dr. Brown As To Physical Therapy

Going to the testimony of treating neurosurgeon Dr. Brown, Plaintiffs claim that he testified that it is below the standard of care to order physical therapy for a patient with a neck fracture. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Unfortunately, Plaintiffs seem to ignore the fact that the standard of care to which Dr. Brown was referring was the neurosurgery standard of care, and that the question itself refers to an order for physical therapy of the neck:

Q. [by Mr. Howard] Does it meet the neurosurgery standard of care in February of 2005 to order physical therapy of the neck?

A. No. That’s below the standard of care with someone with a fracture in their neck to order physical therapy.

Applicability Of Cited Testimony To JNOV And New Trial Motion

Although the cited testimony presented by plaintiffs might serve to defeat a motion for JNOV by a defendant if the verdict was for the plaintiffs, it is irrelevant to the requirements of California law for the granting of a JNOV, which requires the complete ABSENCE of any evidence to SUPPORT the verdict. This was addressed in Defendant’s initial Opposition, and will not be expounded upon again here.

Additionally, it is respectfully submitted that there is no basis for a new trial in this matter – the qualifications of the experts, the nature of their testimony, and the bases for their opinions, together with the repeated variation of their only standard of care expert, Dr. Goldstein, from his prior deposition testimony, clearly show that the jury’s verdict here was the correct one. (See Part 6 of 8.)